Turkey, sick man of Europe, reappears?

This is not a call for Europeans to do the work on
the Turks’ or Kurds’ behalf - but a call to show solidarity with democratic
forces of the country at a critical time.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu returns to Ataturk airport after Dutch withdraw travel permission from his attendance at a rally in Rotterdam, March 12,2017.
Depo Photos/Press Association. All rights reserved.In 1852, John Russell was using his political
sabbatical to make the case for the approaching Crimean War with Russia. To add
spice to his writings, he revealed that the Russian Tsar described the Ottoman
Empire as the ‘Sick Man of Europe’. In the same year, in The Eighteenth
Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, Marx articulated one of his most quoted
aperçues: history repeats itself; first as tragedy, then as farce.

The
devil you know?

Forward one-and-a-half century or so, and the
repetition of history as farce is unmissable. Turkey is once again the sick man
of Europe. It is causing a serious headache for Europe and adding a new dimension
to the geo-political rivalry between Russia and the west. The root cause is
strikingly similar: an authoritarian Ottoman/Turkish state structure bent on
crushing political dissent from below instead of reforming itself. In both
cases, Europe appeased the Ottoman/Turkish rulers on the grounds that the devil
you know is better than turmoil.

The chickens, however, eventually come to roost!
The Sick Man of Europe, personified by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has made it clear
that a ‘strong Turkey’ at the gates of Europe is possible only under a
dictatorial regime. But this ambition poses
serious threats to Europe. The first consists of a new wave of out-migrants and
asylum-seekers escaping regime brutality in the country. The second relates to state-led
mobilisation and espionage activities among the ‘Turkish’ diaspora in Europe,
with increasing evidence of polarisation within already fractured migrant
communities. The third is escalating xenophobia in the rhetoric of Turkish
officials, who have been attempting to humiliate European officials and treating
European governments and institutions with contempt.

Their fear of ‘losing a strategic partner’, has
caused Europe to turn a blind eye to regime atrocities in Turkey. Since
2005, Europe has remained largely silent in the teeth of Turkish official
discourse that has demonised domestic opponents as plotters in the service of
European/western interests. Europe has also remained silent against the AKP
elite’s use of law as an instrument for settling political scores with
opponents. Europe has been silent too as the Turkish state supported and
collaborated with Jihadi terror groups to destabilise Syria. Finally, Europe
remained largely silent when AKP officials (including the president and the
prime-minister) have uttered irredentist claims against other neighbours such
as Iraq and Greece.

But the times are a changin’. The latest UN report has put on record that Turkish
security forces have destroyed Kurdish cities and towns under the pretext of
fighting terrorism. The security crackdown led to deaths of more than one
thousand Kurdish civilians and displacement of over 350,000 Kurdish men, women
and children. Also, in a number of European countries (Austria, Denmark,
Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) local and central government
authorities have refused permission to Turkish officials campaigning for a Yes
vote in the upcoming referendum.

I welcome these developments for four reasons.
First, the Turkish government has already agreed to demands from Germany and
other European countries to refrain from election campaigns on European soil.
Indeed, the Electoral Procedures Law was amended in 2008 by the AKP regime
itself to stipulate that “Election propaganda campaigns shall not be conducted
either in foreign countries or in Turkish representation facilities therein”
(Article 94/A). Turkish officials have violated their own law in 2014
(Presidential elections) and in 2015 general elections. European governments
have been permissive mainly due to fears of having to deal with refugees from
Syria.

Secondly, the strength of the reaction to AKP
officials is positively correlated with the strength of the welfare state and
freedom of speech in Europe. As such, the trigger is not the migrants from
Turkey but the abuse of the European political space by both open and secret
agents of the AKP regime. Europeans are rightly concerned about illegal
activities directed from Turkish embassies and religious attaches in their
countries. The sick man of Europe has polarised not only the politics in Turkey
but also community relations among the ‘Turkish’ diaspora in European
countries.

Third, the people of Europe are no longer buying
the argument that a stable but nasty Turkey is preferable to ‘unknown
alternatives’. There appears to be a growing rejection of appeasement, which
has historically failed to contain dictators and produced disastrous
consequences at the same time.

Finally, I welcome the exclusion of AKP officials
from the European political space because these officials have been
arresting, gassing and incarcerating domestic political dissent both before and
after the start of the referendum campaign. Almost all offices of the Peoples’
Democratic Party (HDP) have been either bombed or raided by nationalist thugs
or the Turkish police or both. Currently, 13 HDP lawmakers and more than 2,000
of its activists are prison. Almost all municipalities in the Kurdish region
(at least 82 municipalities) have been confiscated by the Turkish state; and
their mayors and co-mayors are in prison.

The perpetrators of such massive violations of
political freedom should not have access to the European public space. This is
particularly the case as it has long been known that president Erdogan and his
henchmen view democracy as an instrument for domination; rather an as a regime
that accommodates ethnic, religious and political differences.

Latest
developments

The emerging European stance against the AKP
elite’s dictatorial ambitions deserves every support signalling solidarity as
it does with the democratic opposition in Turkey, at the same time as it defends
European norms and values in a post-Brexit and post-Trump world of
authoritarian threats. Has the new wave of academic persecution in the run-up to
Turkey’s constitutional referendum finally helped to bring Europe to its senses?

Before the botched coup in July 2016, the AKP
government instigated a lynching campaign against Academics for Peace (BAK)
– more than 2,000 academics who signed a letter calling on the Turkish
government to stop destruction and civilian killings in Kurdish cities and
towns. More than 300 BAK academics have been dismissed and a total of about 800
have been subject to disciplinary actions, criminal prosecution or detention. After
the coup, thousands of academics have been fired and around 20 universities
have been shut down on the grounds that they are supporters of the Gulen
Movement – a para-legal network that the AKP regime had allowed to penetrate
state and education institutions before they were newly declared enemies. Scholars at Risk’s 2016 report states that the
government's actions have “harmed the reputation of Turkey’s higher education
sector as a reliable partner for research projects, teaching and study
exchanges, and international conferences and meetings.”

More recently, the AKP regime’s lynching campaign
against Academics for Peace has gathered a new momentum. President Erdogan has
reiterated that Academics for Peace must pay the price for their actions; and
instructed his henchmen in the higher education system and in the media to
tighten the screw.

It is expected that the next wave of purges will be
in some reputable universities that have so far escaped the cull mainly due to the
non-cooperation of their rectors. The rector in one (Bogazici University) has
been replaced by an Erdogan appointee and has already begun to deliver: a
promising historian, Dr Noémi Lévy-Aksu, has been dismissed for signing
the Academics for Peace letter of January 2016. The atmosphere in Bogazici
university is one of fear and helplessness: reputable academics are having to
appease the rector in order to avoid further dismissals.

In Cukurova University in the south, another
promising academic (Dr Mehmet Fatih Tras) has committed suicide after
his contract at the university was terminated and his job applications to
several universities were turned down on the grounds that he is a security
risk. The chain of events leading to Mehmet Fatih’s death begins with Erdogan’s
demonising campaign and ends with a ‘tip off’ from another academic at the same
university, who told the rector that Mehmet Fatih was a terrorist!

There is ample evidence indicating that lists of
academics to be dismissed are being drawn on the basis of ‘information’ from
informants within and outside the university. University rectors and the Higher
Education Council (HEC) compile the lists and submit them to the government for
inclusion in State of Emergency (SoE) decrees. SoE decrees are nothing but
summary executions because there is no appeal mechanism in place – in
contravention to international standards.

The president has the sole authority to appoint
university rectors. More than 90% of the rectors appointed by Erdogan since
2015 are men. The latest seven appointees in March 2017 are all men – and known
to be supporters of the AKP government. A similar pattern is observable in the
case of Higher Education Council appointments: out of 21 HEC members, 14 are
appointed by the president or the council of ministers and only 7 members are
appointed by an inter-university board. The latest HEC member appointed in
March 2017, Nihat Hatipoglu, has decreed on TV that atheists are fathered by Satan and more dangerous!

Given this state of affairs, Europe has lost more
than enough of its soul and values because of appeasement towards the AKP
regime. But the damage is even more severe in Turkey itself: European goodwill must
be withdrawn not only with respect to campaigning by AKP officials but also
with respect to cooperation with the perpetrators of the academic cull in the
country. Many academics in Europe are voicing such demands and offering
support. Financial help from the Council for At-Risk Academics (CARA) and
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation among others are being used to provide full-
or part-time positions for critical academics forced to leave Turkey.

But it is now necessary to go beyond such partial
help. The European Union has just suspended the convergence reform funds
earmarked for Turkey as a candidate country. Funds were suspended on 11 March
2017 on the grounds that Turkey has not undertaken the necessary reforms
related to rule of law. The EU should now channel part of these funds to
provide support to European universities willing to employ the academic victims
of the AKP regime. Furthermore, all European universities and funding councils
should declare a moratorium on future cooperation with the Turkish higher
education system. The moratorium should remain in place until persecuted
academics are fully compensated.

Further dictatorial ambitions and the international
response

President Erdogan and his team are accusing
European governments of being Nazis or Nazi remnants for refusing to allow them to run a
referendum campaign in European cities. This is despite the domestic Turkish
law that prohibits election campaigning in foreign countries. So far Austria,
Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland have barred Turkish
officials from holding referendum meetings.

Other countries have not declared their hand yet,
but it is expected that the UK government will be permissive. This is not
surprising given the lucrative arms contracts that Theresa May just concluded
with Turkey in January 2017. Also, Germany and France are ambivalent due to their
problem with refugees.

Despite the risk of government backsliding in the name
of ‘national interest’, developments so far point to a significant public turn
against appeasement in Europe. They must be evaluated against the backdrop of
major policy shifts within European institutions and the United Nations.

In Europe, the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called on 8 March 2017 for Turkey to
be put under monitoring, a status reserved for members lacking democracy such
as Russia, Azerbaijan and The Ukraine. In its 110th plenary on 10 March 2017,
the Venice Commission has concluded that the proposed
constitutional amendments were a “dangerous step backwards” for democracy in
Turkey. The Commission also noted that “the amendments would not bring a
democratic presidential system based on the separation of powers.” Instead, “it
would risk degeneration into an authoritarian presidential system.”

As already noted above, the EU commission has
suspended EU funds earmarked for convergence reforms that have never happened.
Finally, the UN has documented that the Turkish state has killed hundreds of
Kurds during the security crackdown in 2016. The report provides detailed information about
summary killings, torture, rape and widespread destruction of property among
other violations of human rights and humanitarian law.

Put together, these developments are in strike
contrast to the European/western silence that I and others documented earlier. Part of the reason for
the turn is the increase in the European public’s doubt about the rationale for
appeasement. This public distrust is generating cross-cutting alliances that
force the hands of the politicians to act. Another part of the reason, however,
relates to the dictatorial ambitions of the AKP elite and their new-found
partners among the racist/nationalist camp. The two camps are now united in
their push for a constitution that would provide de jure legitimacy for
dictatorship.

The proposed constitutional amendments are designed
to legalise the de facto dictatorial regime in Turkey. The proposed model of
presidency lacks the safety mechanisms and checks and balances that characterise
democratic presidential systems. It goes beyond the arbitrary regime described
by Montesquieu, where the legislature and the executive powers are under one
control. Indeed, the proposed constitution enables the president to monopolise
all powers, including the judiciary. It also ensures that the president is
immune to any legal and parliamentary scrutiny.

Control of the legislature is ensured in amended
article 116. Under this article, the president can decide on early elections as
and when he wishes. If such a decision is taken, the presidential and
parliamentary elections will be held simultaneously on the same day. This
change will enable the president to keep pressure on the parliament to toe the
line. Otherwise, recalcitrant MPs from the president’s party may be de-selected
in the run up to new elections and all MPs will face the risk of failing to
hold onto their seats after the election.

Control of the Constitutional court is ensured in
Article 146. Under this article, 15 members of the Constitutional Court will be
appointed as follows: (a) 5 members will be selected by the president from
among the candidates designated by the Court of Cassation and Council of State;
(b) 3 members will be selected by the Parliament, which would be normally dominated
by the political party chaired by the president; (c) 3 members will be selected
by the President again from among candidates proposed by the Board of Higher
Education (YÖK), which is appointed by the president in the first place; and
(d) the remaining 4 members will be directly appointed by the President from a
list of professionals. In practice, all members of the Court are selected or
appointed by the president!

Control on the Council of Judges and Prosecutors
seems to be less than full in appearance. Of the 13 members, 4 will be selected
by the president, 7 will be appointed by the parliament, and the remaining 2
will consist of the minister of justice and the undersecretary of the ministry
of justice. In practice, however, presidential control over judges and
prosecutors is also ensured because at least some of the 7 members appointed by
the parliament will reflect the preferences of the president’s party in the
parliament.

The president also has full executive power. Under
amended Article 104, the prerogative of the executive rests with the president,
who will have the power to appoint and fire ministers and vice-presidents. The
president will also have the power to appoint and dismiss the senior state
executives and to regulate the procedures and principles relating thereto
through presidential decrees (Article 104(9)). Under amended article 119,
the president also has full power to declare a state of emergency and martial
law.

Alongside this full spectrum control on the
executive, legislature and the judiciary, the president is declared immune to
criminal liability and/or parliamentary scrutiny. Under amended article 105,
the president can face impeachment only if the parliament voted with a two-thirds
majority, after the preceding hurdle of setting up a parliamentary inquiry
commission with a three-fifths majority. Furthermore, the president will also
be immune from parliamentary scrutiny. Under amended article 98, the parliament
can exercise control only over the cabinet and vice-president(s) – and this is
only through parliamentary questions.

Overall, the proposed constitutional amendments
boil down to a regime that perpetuates the practice of state crimes that the
Turkish state has excelled in. It also protects the chief orchestrator of such crimes
against both legal and parliamentary scrutiny. To put icing on the cake, the
new chief-to-be-crowned (Mr Erdogan) has vowed that the death penalty will be
re-introduced after a Yes vote in the referendum!

The bicycle theory of state violence

The AKP establishment seems to be subscribing to a
‘bicycle theory’ of continued violence as a means of securing re-election. State-orchestrated violence has enabled the AKP
to win the re-run elections in November 2015. Then, the violence against the
Kurds was intensified in 2016. The aim was to consolidate AKP rule by securing
the support of the nationalists and the military. Now a new wave of violence is
in the making, with determination to outdo the past practice.

From a parliamentary question tabled by HDP members, we
learn that the minister of the interior and the commander of the gendarmerie
have issued a directive to governors of 16 Kurdish provinces asking them to
prepare for the ‘Three-Crescent Operation’. The governors are informed that
this operation will be conducted by special commando teams and the armed Kurdish
militia on state payroll. All gatherings or meetings in party buildings or
public spaces will be banned if they are deemed to constitute an obstacle to
the operations of the security forces. Also, state officials should show “no
mercy to anyone” suspected of supporting terrorism; and what is necessary
should be done immediately.

This new wave of state violence is designed to
scare both the Kurdish and non-Kurdish electorate to vote Yes in the
constitutional amendment referendum on 16 April. This is why it is very
important that some European governments and European institutions are taking a
stance against the AKP regime. Appeasement that borrows from the ‘sick man of
Europe’ syndrome of the 1850s is not an option for Europe now – as it is likely
to produce more disastrous outcomes than the appeasement during the Crimean
War.

The European public will remember that
dictatorships are unsustainable in the face of a principled stance by the
people and governments of the countries that value democracy and human rights.
They are also aware that propping up the ‘sick man of Europe’ cannot be
justified by doomsday scenarios based on the assumption that a nasty AKP regime
is preferable to uncertainties about the future of Turkey. As A. J. P Taylor indicated
with respect to the immediate cause of the Crimean War, fear is a disastrous
basis for policy.

Meanwhile, the AKP is not a monolithic party – as
poll after poll indicates, a sizeable portion of its supporters are against the
constitutional amendments. A resilient European stance will allow the silent
opposition within the AKP to challenge the adventurist and dictatorial
ambitions of Erdogan their chief. Beyond that, support for the pro-democracy
HDP is still above 10% – despite unprecedented waves of arrests that include
both its MPs and more than two thousand of its members. In contrast, the
support for the Nationalist Action Party (the main partner of Erdogan in the
referendum campaign) is falling and the Party is likely to remain below the 10%
threshold and hence out of the parliament. Fourth, the hold of the nationalists
on the Republican People’s Party (CHP) will weaken and the strength of the
social-democratic bloc increase when Erdogan fails to secure a win in the
referendum. This combination opens up new avenues for a just solution to the
Kurdish issue in Turkey and a renewed partnership between Turkey and the European
Union.

Finally, the religious and nationalist support that
Erdogan has enjoyed so far should not detract attention from the fact that the
electorate in Turkey are acutely aware of the benefits of secularism and
parliamentary democracy – even though both qualities have had much less than
perfect expression in their country. Given this combination, a pro-democracy
political re-alignment in Turkey is more than wishful thinking. European
governments, institutions and the public at large should side with the democratic
forces of Turkey. This is not a call for Europeans to do the work on the Turks’
or Kurds’ behalf - but a call to show solidarity with democratic forces of the
country at a time when the fear instilled by a ruthless regime is the main
reason of its survival and a major obstacle to the emergence of political
alternatives.

About the author

Mehmet Ugur is Professor of Economics and Institutions and member of
Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre (GPERC) at the Department of
International Business and Economics, University of Greenwich.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.